Son of Buddha wrote:So which one leads to arising and ceasing the aggregates or the self?

It is already known and agreed upon that the skandhas are impermanent (arising and ceasing). The self is necessarily permenent, not arising and not ceasing. If the self were the skandhas, the self would have to be impermanent. That is, being impermanent is a contradiction for the self, not for the skandhas. Therefore, the self cannot be the same as the skandhas.

yes I agree with that.....but what I am talking about is the actual translation itself,the two translations you posted say the exact opposite of each other.

(1)As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. (MMK 18.1) Here is Kalupahana's translation:"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing.

do you see the problem with the translations????

there backwards and say the exact opposite of each other.

(1)in the first quote (MMK 18.1)it is saying if ********** were self it would be possessed of arising and decayingthis quote is saying the self it that which arises and decays and if the aggregates were the self they would arise and decay.

the other quote says the exact opposite

(2)if the **** were identical with the aggregates it will partake of uprising and ceasingthis quote is saying the aggregates is that which arises and decays and if the self were the aggregates it would arise and decay.

as you can see one of the translations is saying the self is the one that arises and decays the other translation says the aggregates are the one that arises and decays

Astus wrote:OK, then Batcheror's translation is misleading. The reason it was quoted for is its meaning that I think is now clarified.

sorry if I have a hard time conveying what I am trying to say,I have a mild TBI which effects my spelling sentence structure,and for some odd reason gives me the ocd urge to repeat the same sentence twice.

yea I got perplexed cause my quote was in agreement with one of the translations but was not in agreement with the other translation of the same exact quote,and I didn't know which one was the proper translation for comparison.

everything is cleared up now sorry to cause confusion.

as far as the Skandha is the Tathagatagarbha that could go many ways,many quote in the Nirvana sutra say NO way the tathagatagarbha isnt the skandha ...but hints at using them.

most pali say Skandha is not self/suffering..ect so that would lead in the direction of NO.

the last chapter of he Nirvana sutra speaks of the the purified aggregates of the Buddha so that would lean YES (Dr tony page has a video on this topic actually)

Dolpopa held the same view of purified Aggregates as last chapt Nirvana sutra and Dr Tony Page (he also quoted texts to support his position) so that would lean YES

the other view I have heard is that the aggregates of the Buddha are not even the same ones as listed in the suttas/sutra and they are the pure qualities of the Buddha this view is however unsubstantiated.

Astus wrote:"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying." (MMK 18.1) [/i]

These translations are even the opposite of each otherKalu"s translation says if the self was the aggregates it would to arising and ceasingKalus translation is saying the aggregates lead to arising and ceasing

The other translation says if the aggregates were the self it would lead arising and ceasingThis translation is saying the self is what leads to arising and ceasing.

Even the translations are the opposite of each other.

So which one leads to arising and ceasing the aggregates or the self?

There is another trans. in Mervyun Sprung's book, Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way (page. 166).

"If the self were identical with the factors of personal existence it would itself arise and perish; if it were other than them, it would not be characterizable in their terms.

The passage seems to be saying that if the âtmâ were skandhic it would be endowed with the nature of arising and destruction. If, on the other hand, the âtmâ is not skandhic it cannot be endowed with skandhic characteristics (i.e., origination and destruction).